Britain’s Court of Appeal has suspended the controversial detained fast-track (DFT) system, which imprisons thousands of asylum seekers each year while they appeal rulings.

The High Court ruled the
process was unlawful on June 12, but put a “legal stay”
on the decision, meaning the fast-track system remained in
operation until government had exhausted attempts to
appeal.

However, the Court of Appeal quashed the legal stay on Friday,
ruling the DFT must end immediately.

The process was brought in a decade ago to accelerate legal
hearings and appeals, while keeping asylum seekers in detention.

Lord Justice Sullivan ruled DFT must end immediately because if
cases continued to be dealt with by the system, they could end up
needing to be heard again, which would be a “very horrible
waste of money.”

The ruling follows a High Court decision that the highly
controversial DFT, which is estimated to be keeping 300-400
asylum seekers in detention, is “unlawful” and
“structurally unfair.”

Detention in Action, a campaign group supporting detained asylum
seekers, challenged the government in court over the legality of
detained fast-track.

The government had argued DFT was fair because asylum seekers
were entitled to appeal for a 10-day adjournment before a final
decision on their case was made.

However, High Court Justice Nicol said this had a “very
limited role” in ensuring a just outcome and therefore ruled
the system was illegal.

Chowdery (not his real name) told RT the detained fast-track
system has “been discredited in the courts and must be
abolished.”

Responding to the Court of Appeals decision on Friday, Detention
Action director Jerome Phelps said: “We are delighted that
asylum seekers will no longer face a detained appeals process
that is so unfair as to be unlawful.

“It is unfortunate that it has taken so many court rulings to
finally suspend this deeply flawed process.

“People seeking protection from war and persecution deserve
better from British justice. We hope that the government will
take this opportunity to reflect and develop a different approach
that is fair,” he added.